Research on Green Supplier Selection Method Based on Improved AHP-FMEA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses the growing need for a sustainable and risk-aware approach to green supplier selection. Traditional evaluation methods often overlook sustainability and risk factors, so the study proposes an improved AHP-FMEA framework. By integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Entropy Weight Method, and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), the model enhances decision-making by balancing subjective and objective criteria while incorporating risk assessment. A case study has been carried out to demonstrate that this method improves accuracy and reliability in supplier ranking.

1. Line 286, Formula 9: Where does this formulation, which includes the ratio 1/ln(t), come from? Please cite the source.
2. Regarding the use of entropy, the entropy being applied here appears to be derived from Shannon entropy, also known as differential entropy. The authors use this formulation without citing the original references or explaining its meaning. I believe it is necessary to expand the bibliography accordingly, and I suggest the following articles, which explain the origin of this formulation, its interpretations, and its fields of application:

https://doi.org/10.3390/ASEC2023-15808

10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58094-9_50

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129512000783

http://dx.doi.org/10.36785/jaes.122548

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the quality and rigor of our study. 

We have carefully addressed each of your comments and made substantial revisions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a green supplier selection model based on improved AHP-FMEA method, which combines analytic hierarchy process (AHP), entropy weight method and failure mode and impact analysis (FMEA) to improve the scientific and objective nature of green supplier selection. This paper verifies the effectiveness of the model through case studies, and compares it with traditional AHP and AHP-entropy weight methods, demonstrating its advantages in risk management and sustainability assessment. Although the paper has high academic value and practicality, there are still some aspects that can be further improved:

1. Although the article mentions the innovation of the improved AHP-FMEA method, it can further discuss the theoretical contributions of the method, especially in the field of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) and sustainable supply chain management.

2. The literature review section could be further expanded, especially with regard to the latest research advances in green supplier selection and the limitations of existing methods. The discussion of the relevant researches in recent years can be added to better highlight the innovation points of this paper.

3. While the article provides background information on Company T, the specific challenges and needs of the company in green supply chain management can be further detailed so that readers can better understand the background and motivations of the case study.

4. While the article provides background information on Company T, the specific challenges and needs of the company in green supply chain management can be further detailed so that readers can better understand the background and motivations of the case study.

5. Some mathematical formulas (such as the calculation of entropy weights and FMEA) can be further explained, especially for readers who are not familiar with these methods, adding some intuitive explanations or examples will help.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall language of the article is clear, but some sentences can be further simplified to avoid overly complicated sentence patterns to improve readability.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the quality and rigor of our study. 

We have carefully addressed each of your comments and made substantial revisions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Clarity and Structure: Add the research inquiries and the formulated hypotheses into the first section of your document. The introduction’s structure will become stronger through this addition to make study objectives more understandable for readers. Although your explanation of methodology is thorough you should convert dense sentences into easily digestible statements because they create better readability. The conclusion section needs expansion to outline the actual and possible business and policy applications of your study findings.
2. Literature Review and References: Your literature review demonstrates comprehensive research however additional analysis of studies that have been published after 2020 would add evidence of the present-day importance of your project. Your references need to link directly to unique arguments and statements which you have made in your paper. The organization of your points will become stronger because of this strategy. Recent studies about sustainability supply chain optimization and AI-driven decision-making processes would enhance your discussion when integrated into your research. Benmamoun et al. (2023), who proposed the Butterfly Algorithm for Sustainable Lot Size Optimization, which aligns with your study’s focus on sustainable supply chain management. (Sustainability, 15(15), 11761. DOI: 10.3390/su151511761). Jebbor, Benmamoun, & Hachimi (2024), who investigated forecasting supply chain disruptions using machine learning, which could enhance your discussion on risk assessment in green supplier selection. (Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 15(12), 103116. DOI: 10.1016/j.asej.2024.103116). Jebbor, Benmamoun, & Hachmi (2024), who explored the role of AI in enhancing sustainability across industries, which complements your work on data-driven decision-making in supplier selection. (Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(10), 7455. DOI: 10.24294/jipd.v8i10.7455).
3. Methodology and Analysis: An additional rationale about why the research team selected FMEA instead of alternative risk assessment methods would reinforce the methodological approach. The addition of visual information through charts tables and diagrams will help explain key integration points among AHP entropy and FMEA.
4. Results and Discussion: A practical evaluation of your analytical method's trade-offs regarding expertise demands and computational complexity requirements would boost practitioners' ability to implement them. More direct links that demonstrate how risk-based green supplier selection through the proposed method leads to better environmental results should be included in the discussion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language remains easy to understand except when sentences become too intricate so simplification helps readability. Some adjustments in grammar would enhance the clarity together with the flow of the text.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the quality and rigor of our study. 

We have carefully addressed each of your comments and made substantial revisions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The suggestions have been only partially implemented, particularly regarding Shannon's original article, which is cited in the text but missing from the references.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the relevant literature in the in-text citation and references in the article, specifically the 22nd and 23rd literature.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have perfected the manuscript, and the reviewer believes that the manuscript meets the publication requirements of the journal sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Your suggestions have further improved the quality of our articles. Thank you very much, and we will continue to work hard!